1

REPORT 4

FEASIBLE OPTIONS STUDY – FOREST PARK-BERRY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report summarizes a study of feasible options to address chronic flooding in the watershed known as the Forest-Park Berry watershed. This flooding problem has posed challenges to the City of Fort Worth, as all previous solutions identified were extremely expensive and beyond the reasonable funding capacity of the city’s storm water utility. The previous solutions were based on application of traditional engineering approaches to a specified design criteria, and the Feasible Options study seeks to identify additional measures using more innovative and alternative approaches that do not necessarily recognize a specific criteria.

The fundamental purpose of the study is to identify options to the previous recommendations for further consideration by the engineering team engaged by the city for the Forest Park-Berry watershed (AECOM). It is based upon a strong engagement with the project stakeholders and general public, along with a high level analysis of potential measures and analyses. This approach allows for a swifter identification and public vetting of potential measures without getting mired in a time consuming and expensive modeling exercise. Once recommendations are made, AECOM will provide more detailed analysis as directed by the city, while the city can begin implementation of more straightforward solutions. This approach was chosen by the city in order to attempt to expedite solutions while performing the necessary study and analyses.

This summary report presents the findings along with a brief description of the problem and the study process leading to the recommendations. A more detailed report has been prepared that provides documentation of the analyses supporting the conclusions.

Based on the formulation and analysis of the alternatives presented in this report, it is recommended that the City implement storage based measures to reduce flooding in the Forest Park-Berry watershed. These include the following:

• Underground detention in transit surface parking lot • Detention in conjunction with transit oriented development plan • Detention in Biddison railroad corridor • Paschal High School underground detention • Watershed-wide detention measures

In addition to the storage-based measures, the following are also recommended:

• Upstream local drainage improvements • Acquire flood prone residences on a voluntary basis, and develop and implement

secondary use plan

In addition, it is recommended that the city continue study on the tunnel alternative proposed by AECOM, and include a revised version of this alternative that extends the tunnel south to Biddison in order to reduce the cost of upstream drainage improvements. This alternative is not feasible due to cost, however additional feasibility is recommended in the event that funding becomes available in the future.

This report contains a summary of the planning study used to identify these options, and contains more detail regarding the specific recommendations.

2

2.0 BACKGROUND

Residents and business owners of portions of the Forest Park-Berry neighborhood have long complained of frequent flooding from thunderstorms and rainfall events. A rainfall event on June 28, 2004 resulted in substantial flooding, especially in the commercial areas along Berry St. and in residential areas just south of Berry St. In addition, there was a washout underneath the railroad tracks along Cleburne Rd. During that event, many homes, business, and properties suffered damage.

This flood event, along with other incidences of flooding in the years surrounding this event, was a large factor in the city establishing a Storm Water Utility Fee, in 2006, to fund improvements and maintenance of the drainage system. Prior to this, the city had minimal resources to address urban flooding, as the stormwater program received only about $5 million annually – barely enough to conduct minimal maintenance to meet federal standards.

To finance the new program, the City of Fort Worth began to issue bonds to finance maintenance and capital improvements, and these bonds are retired from revenue raised from the utility fee. In 2007, the city sold $25 million in bonds to fund the program for two years. These funds were used to repair a dangerous crossing where lives were lost, to conduct inventory of the existing systems, to begin planning studies for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and to increase maintenance activity on the existing infrastructure. In 2009, the city sold $45 million in bonds to continue these activities and begin implementation of projects to address urban flooding. These funds were intended to support the program for two years – 2009 and 2010.

Figure 1 shows a breakdown of the budgeted expenditures for 2011. The pie chart indicates that, based upon existing storm water utility rates, approximately $15 million is available annually for upgrades and improvements to the existing infrastructure.

Figure 1 Storm Water Program – 2011 Budgeted Expenditures

The flooding in 2004 and years surrounding was particularly noteworthy in two areas – the Central Arlington Heights watershed and the Forest Park-Berry watershed. Residents and

3

business leaders in these communities were instrumental in establishing the utility, and due to the severity of flooding, addressing flooding in these areas was made a priority. AECOM was engaged to evaluate the Forest Park-Berry watershed and to identify and recommend measures to address the flooding.

The AECOM study identified a number of alternative plans to address flooding. As directed by the city, and in accordance with city criteria, AECOM only considered plans that would reduce flooding for events up to and including the flood event expected to occur once every 100 years (also known as the “100-year event”). The initial study identified four plans, with the total cost ranging between $29.5 million and $63.6 million. However, the two lowest cost plans (known as Alternatives 1 and 2) involved increasing the outfall flowrate into Zoo Creek. Zoo Creek is a flood prone creek that runs through the zoo to the Clear Fork of the Trinity River, and it will not be possible to increase flooding in this creek. Therefore, only Alternatives 3 and 4 are implementable, and the costs of these alternatives are $63.6 million and $62.8 million, respectively.

Considering that, at current rates, the storm water utility only allows for $15 million annually in capital improvements for the entire city, the city had concerns regarding the cost of the identified solutions. In response to concerns, the Sunland Group was engaged to lead a Value Engineering exercise with the consultant team and city staff. This activity involved refinement of the existing alternatives, including their cost estimates, and the consideration of additional alternatives. The Value Engineering study resulted in five alternative plans, with costs ranging between $43.0 million and $155.7 million.

At the conclusion of the Value Engineering study, the best plan identified was the construction of upstream drainage improvements along with a tunnel to convey flows directly to the Clear Fork. This plan would cost approximately $43.0 million, and would eliminate flooding from events up to and including the 100-year event. However, this plan costs almost three times the annual cost of the cities total annual capital improvement budget for stormwater projects, and no flood relief would be realized until the overwhelming majority of the project is constructed.

As such, no feasible plan had been identified to address flooding in the Forest Park-Berry watershed. Similar challenges were found in identifying solutions to flooding in the Central Arlington Heights watershed, and looking beyond the city noted that it is likely that economic challenges will impede implementation of solutions to urban flooding in many neighborhoods. The city has estimated that the cost to address flooding across the entire city is approximately $1.2 billion, and of this approximately $350 million is considered critical.

In response to these concerns, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc., was engaged to identify feasible options to solutions to flooding in the Central Arlington Heights and Forest Park-Berry watersheds. While this study is focused on these two watersheds, the results and lessons learned are to be framed in a manner to apply citywide in addressing the economic challenges related to the solving flooding in Fort Worth. This study is not a detailed engineering study. Instead, it is focused on the identification and screening of alternatives approaches, including alternatives from the traditional engineering solutions. Further analysis of the options identified will be considered by the City of Fort Worth and their consultant team.

As it pertains to the Forest Park-Berry watershed, the Feasible Options Study seeks to provide answers to the following questions:

• Are there other, more affordable, options that should be considered to address chronic flooding in the Forest Park-Berry watershed?

4

• Are there other options that would bring relief to chronic flooding in a more timely manner?

3.0 THE FOREST PARK-BERRY WATERSHED

The Forest Park-Berry watershed is defined as the area that drains to the main storm sewer trunkline that runs from Berry St. (between Sandage Ave. and Merida Ave.) down to its outfall into Zoo Creek just north of McPherson Ave. (and west of McCart Ave.). The watershed consists of 892 acres, and is depicted in Figure 2. The watershed includes the entire Byers McCart Neighborhood Association, as well as significant portions of the Rosemont, University Court, Bluebonnet Place, Frisco Heights, and Paschal Area Neighborhood Associations. Figure 3 contains a map of neighborhood associations overlayed by the watershed boundary.

Prior to the 20th century, when the majority of the areas surrounding the central business district of Fort Worth were developed, the watershed was drained by surface swales and ravines the conveyed flow to the creek informally known as Zoo Creek, which subsequently conveyed runoff to the Clear Fork of the Trinity River. After larger rainfall events, the flows in the open channels would exceed the natural banks and spill into the floodplains adjacent to the streams. As the area developed, it was desirable to reclaim as much of the area as possible, and the natural waterways were replaced by pipes and then were subsequently filled in. In many areas, homes and businesses were constructed on top of the drainage pipes. The pipes were sized to have a similar conveyance capacity as the streams they replaced – however there was no provision for larger flows that exceeded this capacity.

Figure 2 Forest Park-Berry Watershed

HE

MP

HIL

L

BERRY

GRAN

BURY M

CC

AR

T

8T

H

CLE

BURN

E

FO

RE

ST

PA

RK

UN

IVE

RS

ITY

BENBROOK

UN

IVE

RS

ITY

j

5

Figure 3 Neighborhood Associations

Consequently, today the excess flow is conveyed overland, in streets, alleys, and through lots and structures. During such events, homes and businesses flood, cars flood, properties are damaged, and streets are impassable. Figure 4 shows photographs taken in the watershed during past flood events. Figure 5 shows the estimated area inundated by an event expected to occur, on average, once every five years.

This problem has existed since the development of the area. Over the years, the problem might have been exhausted to some small degree by the intensification of development. However, the current pipes are way too small for the contributing drainage area, and would be substantially larger if today’s drainage criteria were to have been applied when the area was constructed.

6

Figure 4

Forest Park-Berry Flooding

Berry Street Commercial

21

Berry Street Commercial

22

Figure 5 Estimated Inundation from a 5-Year Event

7

4.0 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

The Feasible Options Study involved a robust and targeted public engagement process. This is critical to the study, as it is much more difficult to gauge a plan’s level of acceptability than it is to evaluate its effectiveness or its affordability. The public engagement process was led by Pam Roach Public Relations and the City of Fort Worth’s Community Relations Department.

A stakeholder committee was developed from a cross section of residents and stakeholders to assist in the public process. A number of public meetings and stakeholder meetings were held. Specifically, meetings were held on the following dates:

• October 22, 2010 – Public Meeting • October 27, 2010 – Stakeholder Committee Meeting • March 24, 2011 – Public Meeting • April 28, 2011 – Stakeholder Committee Meeting • June 28, 2011 – Public Meeting

The city also maintained a project website to disseminate information regarding the planning study. The website also contained a link to a survey for residents to complete, assisting the project team in capturing the sentiments in the community.

5.0 PLANNING APPROACH The Feasible Options Study was conducted by applying an organized and deliberate planning process that included the following elements:

• Understanding of existing condition • Identification of goals, objectives, and constraints • Identification and screening of measures • Formulation and analysis of alternative plans • Recommendations

5.1 Understanding of existing condition. Data collection and problem understanding had been completed by the city and by AECOM in their study, and that information was obtained from them. The preceding section of this report presents a description of the problem – which essentially can be stated that the capacity of the current drainage infrastructure is deficient, resulting in chronic flooding as streets, lots, and homes essentially provide storage of excess runoff.

Approximately 300 structures are subject to flooding from a flood event expected to occur, on average, once every one-hundred years. The estimated present value of future expected flood damages is approximately $100 million.

5.2 Goals, objectives, and constraints. The planning team identified the following objectives of plans to reduce flooding in the Forest Park-Berry watershed:

• Reduce damages to homes, businesses, and property from urban flooding. Areas within the Forest Park-Berry watershed are subject to chronic flooding, which causes monetary damage to property. The primary objective is to identify and implement measures to reduce these damages.

8

• Enhance the overall community. Flood damage reduction projects often present opportunities to implement projects in a manner that provide improvements and/or amenities to neighborhoods and communities. In addition, there may be other initiatives unrelated to flooding that provide opportunities for implementation of flood reduction measures. It is an objective of the project to identify such opportunities and incorporate them into plans such that the result of a project implementation is a net improvement in the quality of life of the community.

• Phasablity. Many large plans take years to implement, and often must be phased in over multiple projects. For purposes of this study, phasability refers not to the ability to construct the project in phases; rather, it refers to the ability to obtain incremental benefits of the project at the completion of each phase. As such, phasable projects will deliver relief much sooner.

In addition, the planning team identified the following constraints to the planning process:

• Plans must be generally acceptable by a consensus of stakeholders. Stakeholders are those who have an invested stake in the projects, and include flood victims, residents of the community, business owners in the community, and rate payers throughout the city, and others. The order presented above does represent some element of priority in voice, as those directly impacted by flooding have a larger stake than others. This constraint is important – it will be very difficult for the city to implement solutions that are not accepted by those most impacted.

• Plans must be affordable. The city’s Stormwater Utility has a finite amount of funds available. Currently, they have approximately $15 million per year to invest in stormwater projects citywide. Plans must be formulated that are affordable based upon realistic expectations of affordability.

A simplified view of these objectives and constraints is illustrated in Figure 5. The recommended plan must find the optimum balance of effectiveness, affordability, and acceptability. In many instances, it is quite easy to identify plans that meet just two of these, but consideration of the third often creates tension that complicates the identification of suitable plans.

Figure 6 Competing Objectives

9

In the original study conducted by AECOM, they were directed to only consider alternative that provided solutions to flooding up to and including the 100-year event. Such an absolute requirement does not recognize aspects related to affordability and acceptability, and therefore the identified plans did not pursue the proper balance of these competing objectives.

5.3 Screening of Measures. An initial list of measures were identified, and are listed below. Measures in italics were eliminated during screening process:

• Detention in conjunction with transit oriented development • Mandatory acquisition and greenway detention

• Mandatory acquisition of commercial property and urban streetscape detention

• Detention underneath playing fields at Pashal High School • Detention at water plant

• Acquire industrial property near McCart and construct detention • Mandatory acquisition of floodprone homes • Voluntary acquisition of homes • Detention in Biddison Railroad Corridor • Detention in rail right-of-way

• Underground detention in city right-of-way tied to other city projects • Alley detention • Detention at TCU performing arts center • Underground detention under Transit Parking Lot • Tunnel to Clear Fork • Tunnel to Clear Fork extended upstream to Biddison • Detention at FWISD/Drugstore sites

5.4 Alternative Formulation. A number of alternative plans were formulated. These plans are described in the following section. The description includes an evaluation of each alternative plan in terms of its effectiveness, its affordability, and its acceptability. As a benchmark for comparison, the best alternative from the previous AECOM study is included as Alternative 2.

Alternative 1 – Local Storm Sewer Improvements

Description – The Forest Park-Berry watershed currently is made up of five subsystems that feed into one main storm sewer trunkline, as shown on Figure 7. This alternative calls for the construction of new storm sewers to supplement the existing system and improve the overall conveyance of the system. This is not a stand-alone alternative, as the increase in conveyance will move excess storage downstream and thus require management measures to address this. Therefore, Alternative 1 will be considered in conjunction with other alternatives presented in this analysis.

10

Figure 7 Existing Storm Sewer Network

1

3

5

4 2

HE

MP

HIL

L

BER RY

GR

ANB

URY M

CC

AR

T

8T

H

CLE

BU

RN

E

FO

RE

ST

PA

RK

BENB RO OKU

NIV

ER

SIT

YU

NIV

ER

SIT

Y

Effectiveness – This alternative is highly effective in addressing flooding in the Forest Park-Berry watershed, as it improves overall drainage. The actual measure of effectiveness is dependent upon the level of service provided, which is constrained by the adequacy of the downstream measure. Therefore, the actual quantification of effectiveness will be presented in conjunction with the discussion of the additional alternatives. Affordability – This estimated cost for Alternative 1 ranges between $5,000,000 and $7,000,000.

Acceptability –Construction of the new storm sewer system would temporarily inconvenience many, but this would be a short term issue. Based upon input from the public, this alternative would be highly acceptable.

Alternative 2 – Downstream Improvements with Tunnel (see VE Alternative No. 2)

Description – This alternative proposes a 16-foot diameter tunnel running from the intersection of West Lantey St. and Lubbock Ave. for a distance of approximately 5,500 feet to its outfall into the Clear Fork of the Trinity River near the South University Drive crossing. A 9’ tunnel would be constructed to divert flow from the Berry Street commercial area that is subject to flooding to the beginning of the tunnel. The tunnel would also connect to the new and existing storm sewers in the western portion of the watershed. The tunnel is necessary in order to increase the conveyance of the total system without impacting flow rates in Zoo Creek. Figure 8 illustrates this alternative.

11

Figure 7 Alternative 2 & 3 – Tunnel to Clear Fork

Effectiveness – This alternative is highly effective in addressing flooding in the Forest Park-Berry watershed, as it would eliminate flooding from events expected to occur, on average, once every 100-years. This would add increase the level of service by 2.5 inches of rainfall, from 1.3 inches to 3.8 inches. Affordability – This estimated cost for Alternative 2 is between $34.0 million and $49.0 million. The high cost of the alternative would require phasing, and benefits in the most floodprone area would not be realized until most phases are constructed. In addition, Alternative 1 would have to be constructed in conjunction with this alternative (costs not included here).

12

Acceptability – It is believed that this plan would be highly acceptable. It would require no (or minimal) acquisitions of property.

Alternative 3 – Alternative 1 with 10-Year Level of Service

Description – This alternative is the same as the one presented as Alternative 1, with the exception that the tunnel would be sized to provide a level of service for the 10-year event (2.6 inches of rainfall in one hour). Figure 7 also illustrates this alternative.

Effectiveness – This alternative is would be highly effective in addressing flooding from more common rainfall events. For larger and less frequent rainfalls, there would still be some residual flooding. The alternative would double the level of service, increasing its capacity from 1.3 inches of rainfall to 2.6 inches. As with Alternative 2, the plan calls for a tunnel, but this tunnel would be 12 foot diameter pipe rather than a 16 foot diameter.

Affordability – This estimated cost for Alternative 3 is between $27.0 million and $39.0 million. The high cost of the alternative would require phasing, and benefits in the most floodprone area would not be realized until all phases are constructed. It should be noted that, when compared to Alternative 2, this plan provides a substantial less level of service at only a 20% reduction in cost. In addition, Alternative 1 would have to be constructed in conjunction with this alternative (costs not included here).

Acceptability – It is believed that this plan would be highly acceptable. It would require no (or minimal) acquisitions of property.

Alternative 4 – Watershed Wide Measures

Description – This alternative involves a number of programmatic measures to address flooding throughout the watershed. The most practical of these measures involve installation of underground modular water storage units in public rights-of-way (streets and alleyways) and under parking areas. The modular units are designed to handle some traffic load, although they are not rated for heavy and/or frequent traffic. As such, they could be installed along the edge of road right-of-ways, and this installation would occur in concert with regularly scheduled road repaving projects. As opportunities present themselves, they could be installed in alleys and under parking lots. Underground storage units could be installed in alleys between homes, but that would require the negotiation of the many utilities in the alley. The installation under parking lots would involve the city acquiring an easement from the owner of the property, or the city providing incentives to encourage private interests in installing the units. The units would be designed to gravity drain into drainage pipes, so they would best function near existing storm sewer pipes. The evaluation of this measure assumes sufficient installations to store the equivalent of one-half inch of excess runoff. Figure 8 illustrates underground detention. The underground detention modules do require additional maintenance than surface detention. Figure 9 illustrates an alley-way concept. Other watershed wide measures could include underground or surface detention adjacent to railways along the various rail rights-of-way.

13

Figure 8 Alternative 4 – Underground Detention

Effectiveness – The effectiveness of this measure depends on the amount of storage provided. Since this measure would be programmatic in nature, and street installations would mostly occur in concert with scheduled repaving projects, the installation of the storage modules would occur incrementally over time. It is estimated that it would be practical to, over time, obtain about 5 acre-feet of detention storage, equivalent to a little less than 0.1 inches of runoff. This alternative would not be sufficient, by itself, to manage additional flow from Alternative 1. Affordability – The estimated cost of this alternative is between $2 million and $3.9 million.

Acceptability – The underground units are underground and hidden, and will not impact the look of the community. Based on information obtained from the public engagements, this measure is highly acceptable. However, there have been concerns raised regarding the maintenance risk and costs of underground storage.

Alternative 5 – Detention under Transit Parking

Description – This alternative calls for the installation of underground storage modules (described in Alternative 4) underneath the proposed parking lot to be constructed as part of the commuter rail station. Although the actual timetable for the commuter rail station is a few years away, The T is moving forward with the installation of an interim multi-modal facility that will include a parking lot and commuter bus station. The location of this parking is shown on Figure 10. In order for this alternative to provide relief to areas upstream, it would be necessary to construct improved storm sewers for the areas draining to the detention basin.

Effectiveness – The underground storage would provide about 12 acre-feet of storage volume, which is the equivalent of about 0.15 inches of runoff. It would allow for some improvement to the upstream drainage system, providing marginal relief to areas upstream such as those along Cleburne Rd.

Affordability – It is estimated that this alternative would cost between $5.0 million and $7.5 million. In addition, Alternative 1 would have to be constructed in conjunction with this alternative (costs not included here).

14

Acceptability – Based on information obtained from the public engagements, this measure is highly acceptable. Construction of the new storm sewer system would temporarily inconvenience many, but this would be a short term issue.

Figure 10 Alternative 5 – Location of Transit Parking

Alternative 6 – Detention in Conjunction with Transit Oriented Development

Description – The Fort Worth Transit Authority (The T) has plans for a commuter rail line with a station along Cleburne Road between Berry St. and Devitt St. As part of its larger “Berry Street Initiative”, the city is proposing the utilization of form based code in the area surrounding the proposed station as a Transit Oriented Development measure. Form based code is a method of regulating development to achieve a specific urban form. The development of this code could be done in a manner to require the developers to either construct certain stormwater management facilities or to dedicate land for the city to construct facilities. Figure 11 shows one concept that illustrates how a Transit Oriented Development plan could look. The figure shows some lake areas winding through the urban development. These areas would be low elevation water features that would have a permanent pool, but would have the ability to provide additional storage at elevations above the permanent pool and below the elevation of the adjacent buildings. The amount of detention storage would be constrained, as it is going to be desirable to maximize development density in the vicinity of the community rail station. In order for this alternative to provide relief to areas upstream, it would be necessary to construct improved storm sewers for the areas draining to the detention basin.

Effectiveness – This alternative assumes that a TOD plan could be developed and implemented using form based code that would provide 23 acre-feet of storage, or the equivalent of 0.3 inches of runoff. It would allow for some improvement to the upstream drainage system, providing marginal relief to areas upstream such as those along Cleburne Rd. The main concern regarding effectiveness is the relative uncertainty of the forthcoming development activity. Affordability – The actual cost to the city for this alternative is hard to determine, since much of it would be constructed by the development interests. At minimum, the development interest would provide land to the city. It is estimated that the cost to the city for this

15

alternative would be between $3.0 million and $4.6 million. In addition, Alternative 1 would have to be constructed in conjunction with this alternative (costs not included here).

Acceptability – Based on information obtained from the public engagements, this measure is highly acceptable.

Figure 11 Alternative 6

TOD Detention

Concept

Alternative 7 – Residential Greenway Detention

Description – The alternative involves the construction of surface detention basins in residential areas. The detention basins will be in the form of linear greenways that would act as community amenities, and could be enhanced with landscaping, architecture, hike and bike trails, and other features. The greenways would be located in the lower areas in the locations currently subject to flooding, and would require the acquisition of a number of homes. For this alternative, it was assumed that sufficient residential greenway detention would be constructed to store the equivalent of 0.7 inches of runoff, or about 45 acre-feet of storage volume. This would require the acquisition of approximately 45 properties, primarily single family residences. The size of this alternative could be decreased, but in order to truly serve the entire watershed and to have meaningful greenway connectivity, it is desirable for the alternative to be of this scale.

Effectiveness – This alternative would provide storage for approximately 0.65 inches of runoff, increasing the level of service from 1.3 inches to 2.0 inches. In addition, Alternative 1 would have to be constructed in conjunction with this alternative (costs not included here).

Affordability – This alternative would cost between $10.6 million and $16.0 million.

Acceptability – The greenway would add a nice amenity to the community. However, it would require the acquisition of homes. Based on input received from the community, this alternative is not acceptable.

16

Alternative 8 – Detention in Conjunction with TCU Performing Arts Center

Description – According to the TCU Facilities Master Plan, they intend to construct a performing arts center along Berry St. on a parcel that is currently on the periphery of the area subject to flood damages. Currently, the property is serving as a surface parking lot. This alternative considers the potential installation of flood storage features underneath a portion of the performing arts center. For example, if a parking garage was constructed as part of the structure, perhaps the basement area could be designed to store water – especially since it would not be advisable to allow vehicles to park in this area. The location of the proposed performing arts center is shown on Figure 13.

Effectiveness – it is estimated that just over 0.1 inch of runoff could be stored in such a facility, which by itself would only increase the level of service from 1.3 inches to 1.4 inches.

Affordability – This alternative is estimated to cost between $5.0 million and $8.0 million. Some of this cost would be absorbed by the overall cost of the structure.

Acceptability – Based upon feedback from the public, this alternative is highly acceptable. However, in initial discussions with TCU, they indicated opposition to the alternative. Since it is on their property and would be part of their project, it is necessary to have their endorsement.

Alternative 9 – FWISD/Drugstore Underground Detention

Description – Along the south side of Berry St., near the area subject to flooding, there are two drugstores; and immediately to the south of the drugstores is a Fort Worth Independent School District’s Professional Development Center. This alternative calls for the utilization of the parking lots for these facilities for the installation of underground detention modules. The location of the drugstores and the Fort Worth ISD facilities are shown in Figure 14.

Effectiveness – This alternative assumes that sufficient underground detention can be installed to provide storage for just under 0.1 inch of runoff, increasing the level of service from 1.3 inches to almost 1.4 inches.

Affordability – This alternative would cost between $2.0 million and $3.0 million.

Acceptability – Based on feedback from the public, this alternative is highly acceptable.

Alternative 10– Industrial Site Detention

Description – There is a fairly large industrial site located where Cleburne Rd. turns into McCart Ave., as shown on Figure 15. This site houses Amsco Steel. This alternative considers the acquisition of the site, the removal of the industrial facility, and the construction of a detention basin on this property.

Effectiveness – The site could store approximately 25 acre-feet, or about 0.35 inches of runoff. This would increase the level of service from 1.3 inches to 1.65 inches. The land is a little higher than the flood prone area to the east, and therefore additional excavation, at a higher cost, would be necessary to obtain the desired storage.

Affordability – This alternative is estimated to cost between $6.0 million and $10 million.

17

Acceptability – Based upon input received from the public, this alternative is acceptable. It would likely not be acceptable by the owners. In addition, it would result in a loss of substantial tax revenue to the city.

Alternative 11– Detention in BNSF Railroad Corridor

Description – This alternative calls for the acquisition of the BNSF Railroad segment that runs between North and South Biddison St. between McCart Ave. and Ryan Ave., and the utilization of the acquired land for a linear detention basin. There are two crossings of the railroad that would need to be maintained. The location of this alternative is shown on Figure 16.

Effectiveness – it is estimated that just under 0.1 inch of runoff could be stored in such a facility, which by itself would only increase the level of service from 1.3 inches to 1.4 inches. The effect would more noticeable in the area just upstream of the railroad.

Affordability – There is a lot of cost uncertainty due to potential difficulties in acquiring the property from the railroad. This segment of rail is very lightly used, however there are times when the BNSF will use this as a connection from their North-South main line to the Fort Worth & Western Railroad’s line along Granbury Road, then proceed to south Texas. It is doubtful they would be willing to abandon, and it could be an expensive acquisition. It is estimated that the cost of this alternative will range between $2.5 million and $10.0 million, with the wide range reflecting the general uncertainty. In addition, Alternative 1 would have to be constructed in conjunction with this alternative (costs not included here).

Acceptability – Based upon feedback from public meetings, this alternative would be very acceptable.

Figure 16 Alternative 11 – Detention in BNSF Railroad Corridor

Alternative 12 – Tunnel from Biddison to Clear Fork of Trinity River

Description – This alternative is similar to the Alternatives 2 and 3, except the tunnel is extended upstream through the watershed to Biddison. This alternative requires additional drainage infrastructure similar to Alternative 1, but most of the items contributing to the costs

18

of Alternative 1 (the large trunk lines) are replaced by the tunnel. The tunnel will have a diameter of 16 feet in the Alternative 2 alignment, while the extension to Biddison will have a 12-foot diameter. The existing trunk line that drains to Zoo Creek would provide drainage for areas north of the Berry Street commercial areas that are east of the existing drainage, and from the Paschal area. Alternative 12 is illustrated in Figure 17.

Effectiveness – This alternative would be very effective. It would be capable of draining events up to and including the 100-year event.

Affordability – Based upon estimates, it is estimated that this alternative would cost between $18.0 million and $25.0 million. This includes the drainage improvements similar to those in Alternative 1.

Acceptability – Based upon feedback from public meetings, this alternative would be very acceptable.

Figure 17 Alternative 12 – Tunnel from Biddison to Clear Fork of Trinity River

Alternative 13 – Paschal Detention

Description – This alternative calls for the mandatory acquisition and removal of selected flood prone properties. Specifically, it involves the acquisition of properties subject to inundation from events up to and including the 10-year rainfall, or a rainfall of 2.6 inches. The city would develop and implement an acceptable secondary use of the residual property. There are 137 single family homes, 24 businesses, and 13 multi-family complexes subject to this flood event.

Effectiveness – This measure will not increase the level of service of the drainage system. It only serves to eliminate chronic flooding for a particular property, and is 100% effective in reducing flood risk for acquired properties.

Affordability – This alternative would cost between $45 million and $55 million.

Acceptability – Based on information obtained from the public engagements, this measure is not acceptable. Most stakeholders had strong objectives to acquisition and removal of homes.

19

Figure 18 Alternative 13 – Paschal Detention

Alternative 14 – Mandatory Acquisition of Flood Prone Properties

Description – This alternative calls for the mandatory acquisition and removal of selected flood prone properties. Specifically, it involves the acquisition of properties subject to inundation from events up to and including the 10-year rainfall, or a rainfall of 2.6 inches. The city would develop and implement an acceptable secondary use of the residual property. There are 137 single family homes, 24 businesses, and 13 multi-family complexes subject to this flood event.

Effectiveness – This measure will not increase the level of service of the drainage system. It only serves to eliminate chronic flooding for a particular property, and is 100% effective in reducing flood risk for acquired properties.

Affordability – This alternative would cost between $45 million and $55 million.

Acceptability – Based on information obtained from the public engagements, this measure is not acceptable. Most stakeholders had strong objectives to acquisition and removal of homes.

Alternative 15 – Voluntary Acquisition of Flood Prone Homes

Description – This alternative calls for the acquisition and removal of flood prone homes in situations where the property owner offers the property to the city. The city would develop and implement measures to address the maintenance of the residual property in a manner satisfactory to the community.

20

Effectiveness – This measure will not increase the level of service of the drainage system. It only serves to eliminate chronic flooding for a particular property, and is 100% effective in reducing flood risk for acquired properties.

Affordability – The cost of this measure depends upon number of volunteers participating. As indicated in the previous alternative, the acquisition of all homes subject to flooding is very expensive. However, it is not anticipated that there would be an overwhelming number of volunteers, and if there were the city would have the ability to postpone or deny requests.

Acceptability – Based on information obtained from the public engagements, this measure is not acceptable. Most stakeholders had strong objectives to acquisition and removal of homes. Among those subject to chronic flooding, there are residents and property owners who both favor and oppose this alternative.

Alternative 16 – Do-Nothing (Coping)

Description – This alternative calls for the abandonment of capital plans to address flooding in the Forest Park-Berry watershed, resulting in the utilization of only coping measures to live with the chronic flooding. This alternative is not being pursued by the city, but it is a possible outcome should it become impossible to identify a solution that is effective, affordable, and acceptable. Residents would be left to consider on-site improvements to provide protection, such as floodwalls. Flood insurance would be a means for them to mitigate the cost of the flooding.

Effectiveness – This measure, by definition, would not be effective.

Affordability – There would be no cost to the city beyond the regular maintenance of the existing system. There could be costs to residents in the form of flood insurance premiums, damages from flooding, and on-site measures.

Acceptability – Based on information obtained from the public engagements, this measure is generally not acceptable by many in the community. It should be noted, however, that some residents that are in floodprone homes have voiced that this alternative is a preferable outcome to a plan that involves acquisitions. Since this alternative would be voluntary, it would, by definition, be acceptable to the affected property owner. Weighting this against the general consensus of the neighborhood is difficult, and the acceptability of this alternative is considered neutral.

5.5 Analysis of Alternatives. The previous section identified alternatives and presented an evaluation of them with respect to their overall effectiveness, affordability, and acceptability. In further analysis, each of these attributes was given a score between -5 and +5 for each particular alternative. The scoring is for each attribute is described below:

Effectiveness – Each alternative was graded on its effectiveness in reducing flood damages. An alternative that protects from events up to and including the 100-year event was scored a +5. An event that does not positively reduced flooding was scored a -0-. A negative rating would indicate that the measure increased flood risk. None of the alternatives were given a negative rating.

Affordability – Each alternative was graded on its affordability. Essentially, the estimated cost was prorated on the -5 to +5 scale in a manner that a score of -0- would represent a cost that it is neutral given the city’s capacity to fund the project. The rating also considers

21

the “phasability” of the measure – meaning project elements can be constructed in phases in a manner the allows the incremental realization of project benefits.

Acceptability – Each alternative was graded on its acceptability as determined in the public process. The evaluation is based upon general input and feedback, including the responses received in the last public meeting.

Figure 19 illustrates the resultant grading for each alternative. At first glance, it is easy to identify alternatives where one of the attributes grades into the negative, causing that feasibility of those particular alternatives to be questioned. Alternatives 1 and 2 can be eliminated due to lack of affordability, and Alternatives 7B and 7C are not feasible. Since Alternative 9 is a do-nothing alternative, the feasibility of this not under consideration.

The following summarizes the evaluation of each alternative, with some general commentary summarizing the evaluation:

Alternative 1 – Local Storm Sewer Improvements – Effective, but must be paired with other alternatives.

Alternative 2 – Downstream Improvements with Tunnel (see VE Alternative No. 2) – Effective, but very expensive and may not be feasible due to cost.

Alternative 3 – Alternative 2 with 10-Year Level of Service – Effective, but Alternative 2 performs better since it provides substantially higher level of service at marginal additional cost.

Alternative 4 – Watershed Wide Measures – Minimal effectiveness, but more attractive if other solutions are not identified.

Alternative 5 – Detention under Transit Parking – Effective if paired with other storage alternatives and Alternative 1. Feasible in near term, but redevelopment expected as area becomes more dense. May not have long term viability.

Alternative 6 – Detention in Conjunction with Transit Oriented Development – Very effective and affordable. Feasibility is dependent upon development activity.

Alternative 7 – Residential Greenway Detention – Very effective and affordable. This alternative provides benefits by removing most flood prone properties, and then adds to the drainage infrastructure supporting the remaining community. This would be folded into an attractive community element, perhaps containing greenways, bike trails, and landscaping.

Alternative 8 – Detention in Conjunction with TCU Performing Arts Center – The would be effective if paired with other detention and Alternative 2. It is marginally affordable. There are feasibility concerns based upon lukewarm reception by TCU.

Alternative 9 – FWISD/Drugstore Underground Detention – This is an effective option if paired with other detention and Alternative 1. It may or may not be affordable, as too much reliance on underground detention will result in project costs that get too high.

Alternative 10– Industrial Site Detention – This is a slightly effective option, but the ground elevations in the area are higher. This compromises the overall effectiveness and adds to the cost. The acquisition of the property could be very expensive, and therefore this alternative has minimal feasibility.

22

Figure 19 Alternative Grading

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alt 7 Alt 8

Effectiveness Affordability Acceptability

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

Alt 9 Alt 10 Alt 11 Alt 12 Alt 13 Alt 14 Alt 15 Alt 16

Effectiveness Affordability Acceptability

23

Alternative 11– Detention in BNSF Railroad Corridor – This is an effective option when paired with other detention storage and Alternative 1. It does require acquisition of property from the BNSF railroad that could pose challenges related to feasibility, time, and cost.

Alternative 12 – Tunnel from Biddison to Clear Fork of Trinity River – This is a very effective option. It would be somewhat costly and thus there is questionable affordability.

Alternative 13 – Paschal High School Detention – This is an effective option. It would be marginally affordable.

Alternative 14 – Mandatory Acquisition of Flood Prone Properties – This is effective, but cost prohibitive. Therefore it is not feasible.

Alternative 15 – Voluntary Acquisition of Flood Prone Homes – This is effective for those who participate. It would be affordable so long as there is limited number of volunteers.

Alternative 16 – Do-Nothing (Coping) - As mentioned earlier, this is not a true alternative solution to flooding. It is, however, the end result if feasible plans are not identified and implemented.

5.6 Results

There are a number of alternatives presented that, by themselves, will not make a large positive impact on flood risk in the Forest Park-Berry watershed. However, these alternatives could be combined with other alternatives in order to pursue a higher level of effectiveness.

Based upon the evaluation and the grading shown in Figure 19, it is clear that the tunnel alternatives area expensive and of questionable affordability. However, since they provide the substantial flood relief, it is recommended that Alternatives 2 and 12 be considered for additional study. Alternative 12, in particular, may provide a more affordable means to drain the watershed. These alternatives are not feasible at this time and are therefore not recommended, but additional study is desirable in the event that funding conditions change.

Additional alternatives should be considered that strive to address flood risk by storing excess runoff. In order to increase the overall level of service to 2.6 inches, it is necessary to store 68 acre-feet. The most cost effective means to achieve this detention volume is by using Alternatives 6 and 7 in combination with Alternative 1. This would cost between $18.6 million and $27.6 million. Although this project is just slightly less costly than Alternative 2, it could be implemented through a number of smaller projects, with each of these projects providing incremental benefits. However, Alternative 7 would not be considered acceptable, and therefore this alternative is not feasible.

A more acceptable means of achieving the desired storage is to use Alternatives 5 and 13 in combination with Alternatives 1 and 6. This would provide a slightly lower level of service (2.3 inches instead of 2.6 inches), and with a cost between $21.0 million and $33.0 million it is more expensive. As with the previous combination, projects can be phased in with incremental benefits being realized during construction. One concern is the long term viability of the underground detention associated with the surface parking lot. Over time, it is anticipated that the parking lot will be redeveloped and the detention would likely be removed. In addition, there is concern regarding the amount of underground detention in this plan, as it is generally 3 to 4 times more expensive than surface detention.

24

There is another concern that these two detention plans are over-reliant on the Transit Oriented Development plan. While there is some uncertainty regarding the implementation of new development, the more realistic concern is the timing. It could be a number of years before the re-development takes hold in the area, which would further delay the provision of flood relief.

There are other detention alternatives that warrant consideration. Alternative 11 considers the BNSF railroad running between the north and south West Biddison Street. This corridor is wide, and could accommodate an effective amount of surface detention. The larger concern is negotiation with BNSF. While it is considered unlikely that they would be receptive, the promise of this alternative is such that it warrants aggressive discussions with the railroad. If an amenable arrangement could be developed, Alternative 11 would likely be a strong component of a larger alternative mix.

If substantial structural feasible options cannot be identified and implemented, watershed measures and voluntary buyout be pursued in order to provide a margin of relief. These features could be implemented in combination with any plan mix.

Based on the formulation and analysis of the alternatives presented in this report, it is recommended that the City implement storage based measures to reduce flooding in the Forest Park-Berry watershed. These include the following:

• Underground detention in transit surface parking lot • Detention in conjunction with transit oriented development plan • Detention in Biddison railroad corridor • Paschal High School underground detention • Watershed-wide detention measures

In addition to the storage-based measures, the following are also recommended:

• Upstream local drainage improvements • Acquire flood prone residences on a voluntary basis, and develop and implement

secondary use plan

In addition, it is recommended that the city continue study on the tunnel alternative proposed by AECOM, and include a revised version of this alternative that extends the tunnel south to Biddison in order to reduce the cost of upstream drainage improvements. This alternative is not feasible due to cost, however additional feasibility is recommended in the event that funding becomes available in the future.